Hey all! Remember last year when I put up a poll and you all wanted a slaughterhouse? And I was all "ehh, no"? Yeah, well that seemed to be the more popular option, so that's what I'm doing this year! (If you all want a poll, well I could do that too)

So welcome one and all to the Pseudopod Best of 2011 Slaughterhouse! It promises to be a bloody match!

So, rules! Each story begins the match with one point. Once a day, remove a point from one 2011 story and give it to another. Stories with zero points remaining 'die'. However, since this is Pseudopod, the dead can rise again. A little necromancy is okay in the Slaughterhouse. A story with zero points can be resurrected, but only once. (I think that's a fun idea, speak up if you disagree or want to add a caveat to the rule. I like it because it will let some people who didn't see this right away to resurrect a story they really liked if it is already dead. Also, I'll keep track of any story that has been resurrected to make sure it only comes back once) Dead stories are posted below the list and crossed out.The winner is the story with the most points at the end of the match, when all but three stories are dead.

Remember to post the full list of stories when you cast your vote, and to bold your +'s and -'s. Also be sure to make it clear when you resurrect a story. And be sure to refresh the page and check for new posts before you post. I hope I'm not forgetting anything... shrug.

Like last year, trash talk is encouraged. This is a fight, after all. I'll give y'all a bit of leeway

I'd like to thank Fenrix for putting together the list of 2011 stories for me.

So, come enter the Slaughterhouse, but watch your step, you never know what might be crawling around in here.

Just to let you all know, there will be a traditional poll up sometime tomorrow Keep on slaughtering!

I'm honestly glad to have both. More chances for us to give you guys feedback.

I do have to say, this has been a great year for Pseudopod. I think Pseudopod is my traditional favorite (although Podcastle "won" 2010 for me), but considered as a year, I think this has been a very good year for you guys.

I loved looker, but it is too early to be rising things from the dead. So talisman you go rot in hell like the giant should have in the worst ending I've ever dared listen to. And ICU you keep kicking even if your a vegatable your not dead yet.

a true slaughterhouse this year. you butchered the Vonnegut reference and gutted the format.

why did you skip the nomination process? by starting every story with one point you make all stories vulnerable to elimination immediately. as we saw last year, one person with a vendetta will attempt to destroy a generally popular story. and now they can.

you seem to be aware of the problem. the resurrection thing looks like an attempt to address it, but all that means is that they have to kill it twice.

what advantage is there to starting this before doing the best story nominations?

Well as we learned last year, someone will find a reason to declare the whole process null and void if they don't agree with the results anyway, so let's not pretend these are scientific. The poll is probably a much more accurate measure, it's less vulnerable to gamesmanship and enthusiasm/free-time differences. But even the poll isn't perfect, the slaughterhouse is just a fun way to give stories with an enthusiastic fan base a chance to demonstrate that, even if they might come in the middle of a poll.

The haters are a bigger disruption than the lovers, (see "Set Down This" fight from last year), and I think maybe next year, nominations should go first, but it is hardly worth restarting the thread this year, even this early in the process.

a true slaughterhouse this year. you butchered the Vonnegut reference and gutted the format.

why did you skip the nomination process? by starting every story with one point you make all stories vulnerable to elimination immediately. as we saw last year, one person with a vendetta will attempt to destroy a generally popular story. and now they can.

you seem to be aware of the problem. the resurrection thing looks like an attempt to address it, but all that means is that they have to kill it twice.

what advantage is there to starting this before doing the best story nominations?

I was thinking about that. Maybe have resurrected stories come back with at least two points, so they can't be re-killed immediately. Or three and disallow folks to resurrect something they killed to prevent gaming extra points in. We could also set it so that someone resurrecting a story foregoes a standard move for the day.

Well as we learned last year, someone will find a reason to declare the whole process null and void if they don't agree with the results anyway, so let's not pretend these are scientific.

agreed. slaughterhouse wouldn't even have existed at all if we let haters kill it.

but this isn't a question of better end results, it's about quality of experience. the nomination process lets people give credit to all the stories they've enjoyed over the year, this format doesn't.

slaughterhouse is a long process that goes on for months. resurrection was specifically disallowed to make sure that things draw to a close before everyone becomes bored.

allowing a month for nominations will almost certainly result in a better point distribution than running this for a month. more importantly, all the stories that people enjoy and want to talk about will be represented instead of being killed off early.

it's worth applying some basic game theory before jumping into something that will take months.

a true slaughterhouse this year. you butchered the Vonnegut reference and gutted the format.

I was very aware of your Vonnegut reference, I simply didn't copy you. Sorry if I offended.

Quote

why did you skip the nomination process? by starting every story with one point you make all stories vulnerable to elimination immediately. as we saw last year, one person with a vendetta will attempt to destroy a generally popular story. and now they can.

I can pretend to be infallible and say I like the larger format (which I do), but the truth is I just forgot that this took place after the nominations had been done. Shrug.

Quote

you seem to be aware of the problem. the resurrection thing looks like an attempt to address it, but all that means is that they have to kill it twice.

Which is why I asked if anyone thought the rule should be added to.

This can be edited, I get it, I messed up. Do we want to put this on hold and restart it after nominations? Do we want to keep going?

Logged

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?Five pounds? Six pounds? Seven pounds?

I can't disagree with anything you're saying, Deflective, I just don't really want to have to copy/paste the same votes twice . I really wouldn't mind if they did start over, in all seriousness, but I don't see and urgent a need for it (while still acknowledging that your method is preferable in the future).

But I've just been impatient to get voting on stuff in general. I blame the Republican primary elections being so much in the news, they get up my fervor for democratic action, but don't provide me with anything I want to vote on (no Democratic primaries at all in my state). So I just want to vote on some stuff, everyone ignore me please.

But I have opinions and I yearn to make them heard.

(Dearest Daughter is BRILLIANT!), (I want to invent a time machine, give him a sex change, become a sea horse, and have William Hope Hodgson's babies), (Dave Thompson has renewed my love for Santa Claus!)

EDIT: Just saw the Tiger's post, I have no problem putting this on hold and reassigning points. What say we keep the votes we've already made, and just add one point to each Nomination or Runner-up Mention a story gets on top of their current total? Resurrections performed this way do not count toward the once-in-an-afterlife limit.

Presumably everyone who has voted here will feel the same way in a month, and this way we won't have wasted our precious procrastination time.

I'm with Umbrage. Playing's fun. This game's awesomeness is directly proportional to the number of people who play. I think both of y'all should jump into the carnage. If we start over, I'll keep playing. If we keep going, I'll keep playing. Then again, I've played lots of games but no real game theory. I can't see the the intrinsic flaws, but I'm not playing to win.

I still the modification to the resurrection rule bringing a story back with three points, and forfeiting any other move for the day. Can someone poke holes in that? Would that provide enough balance versus dragging the game out longer?

If we have four plays a day for a week, I expect half the playing field will be gone. Two weeks in will get nice and vicious.

I was very aware of your Vonnegut reference, I simply didn't copy you. Sorry if I offended.

i didn't say that you weren't aware of the reference, just that you butchered it (providing me with a hook to open my comment). if you want to set yourself apart from last year then you'd be better off sticking to the old format and dropping slaughterhouse from the title entirely.

truth be told, i haven't been able to devote much time to escape artists this year and i haven't heard a lot of episodes. my interest is largely theoretical because of this. i don't have an opinion whether or not to reboot.

but no one like to see something they've started go off the rails. the way things are now, the best play is to immediately kill off popular stories that compete with your favourite. interesting games should result because of your game mechanics, not despite it.